In the ramp-up to the presidential election, it's increasingly clear that demographics are playing a major role in the campaign. But there's another aspect that hasn't been as closely examined: the credit scores of each candidates' followers. Credit scores are relied on by lenders to determine who might make a good borrower or which applicants might be more of a risk. Some argue that credit scores can tell you a lot more about a person, such as whether they'd be a good employee or even if a date might make a good romantic partner. What the credit scores of a candidates' supporters bodes for the election may not be as clear, but it's sure a lot more fun to think about it. So whose supporters are worst off when it comes to credit scores? Turns out that claim goes to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, with financial site WalletHub finding that 26 percent of her supporters have bad credit, the most of any candidate. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-candidates-followers-have-the-worst-credit-scores/ I've found it to be true that those with good credit make good decisions. An interesting thing to ponder
So, really, 26% of the people of that unknown percentage of the 765 people who support Hillary during this online-only polling have "bad" credit scores. But don't worry, because, Wallethub has ...normalized the data so the panel would reflect U.S. demographics. for us! Yay, that makes it good and useful information!
Stands to reason. People with bad credit would be first in line looking for handouts. of course they flock to the candidate promising more free stuff.
Figures, I could have guessed it was Trump's supporters without even clicking on the link. They probably got in trouble after spending it all on guns, tobacco, that pickup truck, and the down payment on the mobile home.
Interesting aspect. I have studied all sorts of criteria for measuring candidates while earning my degree but I can honestly say I have never seen anyone look at credit scores.
wait did you read the persons message and the story... Trump doesn't have the largest percent of poor credit voters, Hillary does... the only category they could to demonize Trump was when they compared amount of "excellent" credit scores... Trump only had 50% "excellent credit" followers while Hillary had 51% of hers with "excellent credit"... are you clearly missing what was written in the article because you skimmed through it looking for the first negative thing you could find? and in doing so you completely missed the entire point of the article and thread to begin with? but that makes it sound like there is a lot of difference between them... there is practically no difference between the candidates... they ALL have a wide variety of followers and they clearly ALL have a wide variety of credit scores... this is a huge story about NOTHING... its just an attempt to soften statements on one and smear others... sham... https://wallethub.com/blog/credit-scores-by-candidate/19911/ I wanted to link the picture of the chart directly, but seems they are getting creative with the java so I can't... look at the credit score chart, a big pile of NOTHING... the story should say, while almost completely insignificant, the only candidate who seems to have captured the upper class of credit scores is Kasich... since he has the most high scores and the least low scores... but like I said, despite republicans having the "better" numbers, this is almost completely statistically irrelevant in difference...
Hillary has been giving Bernie a run on being Bernie of late, and since it's looking pretty clear that Bernie wont get the gold...they have to go somewhere.
Interesting article, One would think that either a majority of Cruz or Trump supporters would have the claim with the most who have excellent credit scores, it turns out that honor is bestowed to John Kasich, followed by Rubio, then Cruz, and then Trump.
